Re: One-To-One Relationships

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:474f8ba3$0$5284$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
> JOG wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 12:53 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >>On Nov 30, 7:34 am, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Nov 28, 10:37 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_ooyah.ac> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Bob Badour wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>rpost wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>This is the exact problem Chen identified. In the relational model
> >>>>>>it is impossible to have entity-valued attributes, which, in
practice,
> >>>>>>we have a huge amount of.
> >>
> >>>>>Entities are figments of our imaginations.
> >>>>>...
> >>
> >>>>That's much better than my reply, looks like the essential point to
me.
> >>
> >>>Entities are concepts that we impose on that which is there (mostly
> >>>shapes made out of atoms, but sometimes abstractions too).
> >>
> >>>Entities are 'real' in that they are patterns that we think up and
> >>>apply, and 'not real' in that if we were all dead, well there wouldn't
> >>>be any 'entities' would there. Just atoms again.
> >>
> >>Is this merely an argument against mathematical realism or something
> >>more specific?
> >
> >
> > I haven't argued anything, I have just defined entities. All seems
> > like common sense to me.
> >
> >
> >>>Because we conjure them up 'entities' aren't neatly defined, can
> >>>overlap, change, and will differ from person to person. In fact its a
> >>>testament to the amazing flexibilty of our noggins that that we
> >>>manage to communicate at all.
> >>
> >>Do you consider all mathematics to be "conjured up" and therefore not
> >>neatly defined as well?
> >
> >
> > Non-sequitur. I have made no comments on mathematics nor on anything
> > being ill-defined.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is that given the contextual nature of how we
> > define any given entity, any model centered upon them is going to have
> > a very inflexible, brittle view of the world.
> >
> > There are a load of atoms. Someone else looks at them and says hey its
> > a dead bit of wood, its a 'stump' entity. Someone else considers a
> > bigger picture and says its a snapshot of a 'tree' entity. Me, being
> > lazy, say hey I could sit on that, its a 'seat' entity, etc., ad
> > infinitum.
> >
> > Whos right? Noone. Everyone. Who cares. It just depends on the
> > context, and with shared data, thats gonna vary. So lets encode the
> > underlying bloody information, and not whatever brittle view of the
> > world that first pops into our heads, ending up with a brittle,
> > creaking database.
> >
> >
> >>>And as such, anyone who tells you that you can build a permanent, all
> >>>encompassing model out of such utterly woolly things is not to be
> >>>trusted as far as you can throw them.
> >>
> >>>P.S I have also had similar experinces at Ikea :) I don't follow the
> >>>arrows anymore. They lie.
> >>
> >>If there is a valid argument against "entities" I would hope it can be
> >>stated more carefully than your or Bob's attempts.
> >
> >
> > Again I haven't argued against entities. However, I am of course
> > interested in what you deem invalid in my comments.
>
> He didn't like the figment argument? I thought it was careful and quite
> clear. Perhaps, I should elaborate:
>
> Entities are subjective and products more of applied psychology than
> applied mathematics.

So the subject matter is subjective. Why is that a criticism? Received on Fri Nov 30 2007 - 14:37:56 CET